{
  "schema_version": "1.3",
  "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0018,M-0017&cols=prover,tested,hardware,sees",
  "data_generated": "2026-10-09",
  "definitions": {
    "methodology": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/",
    "readiness": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/",
    "filters": [
      {
        "id": "prover",
        "label": "Prover",
        "question": "How far can the party being checked be trusted?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "cooperative",
            "label": "Cooperative"
          },
          {
            "value": "semi-trusted",
            "label": "Semi-trusted"
          },
          {
            "value": "adversarial",
            "label": "Adversarial"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption.",
        "about": "The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions."
      },
      {
        "id": "onsite",
        "label": "Verifier devices on site",
        "question": "May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "no",
            "label": "Not allowed"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Not allowed\" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor.",
        "about": "Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered."
      },
      {
        "id": "coop",
        "label": "Prover cooperation",
        "question": "How much must the prover take part?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "partial",
            "label": "Partial at most"
          },
          {
            "value": "none",
            "label": "Not required"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Partial at most\" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. \"Not required\" keeps only those that work without it.",
        "about": "Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery."
      },
      {
        "id": "chips",
        "label": "Chips",
        "question": "May the proposal depend on new chip designs?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "existing",
            "label": "Existing chips only"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Existing chips only\" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs.",
        "about": "New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay."
      },
      {
        "id": "ready",
        "label": "Minimum development status",
        "question": "Development status",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "R1",
            "label": "Proposed"
          },
          {
            "value": "R2",
            "label": "Research demonstration"
          },
          {
            "value": "R3",
            "label": "Operational use"
          },
          {
            "value": "R4",
            "label": "Legacy independent-evaluation filter",
            "legacy": true
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one.",
        "about": "A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws."
      },
      {
        "id": "tested",
        "label": "Attack testing",
        "question": "How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "analysis",
            "label": "Published analysis"
          },
          {
            "value": "red-teamed",
            "label": "Red-teamed"
          },
          {
            "value": "independent-red-team",
            "label": "Independent red-team"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this.",
        "about": "The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them."
      },
      {
        "id": "hide",
        "label": "Keep hidden from the verifier",
        "question": "What must the verifier never see?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "weights",
            "label": "Model weights"
          },
          {
            "value": "io",
            "label": "Inputs and outputs"
          },
          {
            "value": "training",
            "label": "Training data"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.",
        "about": "Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet."
      }
    ],
    "exposure": "For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.",
    "claim_status": {
      "addressed": "A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.",
      "partly-addressed": "Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.",
      "unaddressed": "No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim."
    },
    "finding_classification": {
      "failure": {
        "label": "Known failures",
        "singular": "Known failure",
        "anchor": "known-flaws"
      },
      "scope-limitation": {
        "label": "Scope limitations",
        "singular": "Scope limitation",
        "anchor": "scope-limitations"
      },
      "open-question": {
        "label": "Open questions",
        "singular": "Open question",
        "anchor": "open-questions"
      }
    },
    "finding_scope": "Evidence scope describes where a finding was demonstrated; it does not establish applicability to every implementation in the mechanism family.",
    "claim_finding_scope": "open_critical_findings names active failures on the assessed records; open_critical_context names conditional family failures whose implementation applicability is unassessed.",
    "legacy_status": "The status field retains covered/partial/none for compatibility. It names claim links, never successful verification. Use claim_status and status_label for presentation."
  },
  "filters": {
    "prover": "",
    "onsite": "",
    "coop": "",
    "chips": "",
    "ready": "",
    "tested": "",
    "hide": []
  },
  "mechanisms_passing_filters": 25,
  "claims": [],
  "mechanisms": [
    {
      "id": "M-0018",
      "title": "Chip location verification",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0018",
        "title": "Chip location verification",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 4,
        "scope_limitation": 0,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 4,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R1",
        "scope": "bounding how far a chip is from trusted landmark servers when checked",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1401",
          "S-3570",
          "S-1402",
          "S-1404",
          "S-1403",
          "S-0056"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1403",
              "S-1400"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1400",
              "S-1402"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1400",
              "S-1402"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1400",
              "S-1402",
              "S-1404"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 4,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "existing-features",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Times signed replies from chips; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0017",
        "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 2,
        "scope_limitation": 1,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0052",
          "S-1315",
          "S-0051",
          "S-0050",
          "S-3262",
          "S-1316",
          "S-0018"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1317",
              "S-1318"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1315",
              "S-0052",
              "S-3261"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "retrofit-device",
        "prover_cooperation": "partial",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    }
  ],
  "strengths": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0018",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0018"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "properties": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0018",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0018"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "attack_testing": [
    {
      "id": "M-0018",
      "record": "M-0018",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    }
  ],
  "selected_implementations": {},
  "weaknesses": {
    "gaps": [],
    "excluded": [],
    "unlinked": [],
    "critical": [],
    "significant": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Ping-based protocols rely on cryptographic keys stored on the chip. Tee and Happel argue that an adversary with physical access could extract these keys and so compromise location verification. They propose GPU fingerprints as a mitigation, so far tested on 24 GPUs. Brass and Aarne assume the keys are stored securely, for example in a TPM.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1403",
          "S-1400"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Added delay can shift an estimated position",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Brass and Aarne cite internet-geolocation research in which artificially increased round-trip times moved the estimated location by up to 1,000 km, with a 74% chance of avoiding detection. Avellar and Grunewald list inflated ping times from circuitous routing as an evasion route. Added delay only loosens a distance bound, and Brass and Aarne propose a hard time limit as the counter: a chip that replies too slowly cannot be ruled out of a restricted location.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1402"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Faster-than-assumed network paths",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Brass and Aarne list dark fibre and other private high-speed interconnects as ways to lower measured delays artificially. They judge that leasing dark fibre would probably not be a considerable challenge for covertly or openly adversarial actors. Avellar and Grunewald note that this can make a chip appear to be somewhere else entirely. A limit set at the vacuum speed of light cannot be beaten, but it makes honest chips fail more often.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1402"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "A party that controls landmark servers can report false timing. Brass and Aarne cite research in which manipulating a third of the landmarks shifted the estimated location by about 700 km. Avellar and Grunewald note that compromised landmarks let adversaries spoof travel-time measurements directly. The draft specification asks verifiers to require anchors in diverse places, run by several independent operators.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1402",
          "S-1404"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1317",
          "S-1318"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315",
          "S-0052",
          "S-3261"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "criticalMechanisms": [],
    "significantMechanisms": [
      "M-0018",
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "familyContext": [],
    "scopeLimitations": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1318",
          "S-1316"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "openQuestions": [],
    "minor": 0,
    "minorFindings": [],
    "minorBy": [],
    "notDemonstrated": [
      "M-0018"
    ],
    "newChip": []
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "mech": "M-0018",
      "record": "M-0018",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Ping-based protocols rely on cryptographic keys stored on the chip. Tee and Happel argue that an adversary with physical access could extract these keys and so compromise location verification. They propose GPU fingerprints as a mitigation, so far tested on 24 GPUs. Brass and Aarne assume the keys are stored securely, for example in a TPM.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1403",
        "S-1400"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0018",
      "record": "M-0018",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Added delay can shift an estimated position",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Brass and Aarne cite internet-geolocation research in which artificially increased round-trip times moved the estimated location by up to 1,000 km, with a 74% chance of avoiding detection. Avellar and Grunewald list inflated ping times from circuitous routing as an evasion route. Added delay only loosens a distance bound, and Brass and Aarne propose a hard time limit as the counter: a chip that replies too slowly cannot be ruled out of a restricted location.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1400",
        "S-1402"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0018",
      "record": "M-0018",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Faster-than-assumed network paths",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Brass and Aarne list dark fibre and other private high-speed interconnects as ways to lower measured delays artificially. They judge that leasing dark fibre would probably not be a considerable challenge for covertly or openly adversarial actors. Avellar and Grunewald note that this can make a chip appear to be somewhere else entirely. A limit set at the vacuum speed of light cannot be beaten, but it makes honest chips fail more often.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1400",
        "S-1402"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0018",
      "record": "M-0018",
      "n": 4,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "A party that controls landmark servers can report false timing. Brass and Aarne cite research in which manipulating a third of the landmarks shifted the estimated location by about 700 km. Avellar and Grunewald note that compromised landmarks let adversaries spoof travel-time measurements directly. The draft specification asks verifiers to require anchors in diverse places, run by several independent operators.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1400",
        "S-1402",
        "S-1404"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1317",
        "S-1318"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1318",
        "S-1316"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1315",
        "S-0052",
        "S-3261"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "possible_additions": [
    {
      "id": "M-0008",
      "title": "TEE remote attestation for AI workloads",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/",
      "readiness": "R3",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R3",
        "label": "Operational use",
        "short": "Operational use",
        "rank": 3,
        "legacy_code": "R3"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "independent-red-team",
          "label": "Published attack testing",
          "kind": "practical",
          "attribution": "Independent team"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1202",
              "S-3126",
              "S-0012",
              "S-1206",
              "S-0014",
              "S-1210",
              "S-1212",
              "S-3127"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1210",
              "S-1211"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "mitigated",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1212",
              "S-1213",
              "S-3127",
              "S-3128"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1202"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 5,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-0012",
              "S-0009",
              "S-0014",
              "S-3123",
              "S-3129"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 8,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-0014",
              "S-0009",
              "S-3130",
              "S-3131"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 2,
          "significant": 3,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "prerequisite",
          "mech": "M-0018"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "goal": null,
  "design": null,
  "dependencies": {
    "prerequisites": [
      {
        "id": "M-0008",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0018"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "shared": [],
    "blockers": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No public code or reproducible end-to-end location results are available for the reported H100 prototype.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1401",
          "S-3570"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Per-chip keys must be provisioned and protected against extraction; hardware-integrated, tamper-resistant versions still need R&D.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1403",
          "S-0007"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "The time limit forces a trade-off: a limit at the speed of light in fibre can be beaten by faster links, while one at the vacuum speed of light makes honest chips fail often.",
        "theme": "protocol-soundness",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0018",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "A trusted landmark network must be built and secured, and who should operate it, under what oversight, is unsettled.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1400",
          "S-1402"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Battery-backed designs add bulk, limit operating temperature (+10 °C to +35 °C for the IBM 4765) and complicate transport.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1316"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "exposure": {
    "weights": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0018",
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "io": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0018",
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "training": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0018",
        "M-0017"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    }
  },
  "implementations": [
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0018",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0009",
          "title": "Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0017",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0011",
          "title": "AI 2040 inference-only verification stack",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S-1400",
      "title": "Location Verification for AI Chips",
      "authors": "A. Brass & O. Aarne",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://www.iaps.ai/research/location-verification-for-ai-chips",
      "path": "/sources/brass-location-verification-ai-chips/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1401",
      "title": "Location Verification for AI Chips (issue brief)",
      "authors": "A. Brass",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64edf8e7f2b10d716b5ba0e1/t/6827b67275666f3757f134ea/1747433075281/Location+Verification+two-pager.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/brass-location-verification-issue-brief/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3570",
      "title": "Ping-based Location",
      "authors": "Ulyssean",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://ping-location.info/",
      "path": "/sources/ulyssean-ping-based-location-demo/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1402",
      "title": "Near-Term Verification Methods for AI Chip Exports",
      "authors": "B. Avellar & E. Grunewald",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.iaps.ai/research/near-term-verification-methods-for-ai-chip-exports",
      "path": "/sources/avellar-near-term-verification-ai-chip-exports/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1404",
      "title": "Sovereignty Certificates: draft specification, version 0.1.0",
      "authors": "Sovereignty Certificates Working Group",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://github.com/Lucid-Computing/sovereignty-certificate-specification",
      "path": "/sources/sovereignty-certificates-specification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1403",
      "title": "GPU Fingerprinting for Location Verification",
      "authors": "W. Tee & J. Happel",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01930",
      "path": "/sources/tee-gpu-fingerprinting-location-verification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0056",
      "title": "Secure, Governable Chips: Using On-Chip Mechanisms to Manage National Security Risks from AI & Advanced Computing",
      "authors": "O. Aarne et al.",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/secure-governable-chips",
      "path": "/sources/aarne-secure-governable-chips/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0052",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems",
      "authors": "P. Staat et al.",
      "year": 2022,
      "url": "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/",
      "path": "/sources/staat-anti-tamper-radio/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1315",
      "title": "Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance",
      "authors": "V. Immler et al.",
      "year": 2019,
      "url": "https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334",
      "path": "/sources/immler-secure-physical-enclosures-covers/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0051",
      "title": "ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection",
      "authors": "T. Mosavirik et al.",
      "year": 2023,
      "url": "https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946",
      "path": "/sources/mosavirik-impedanceverif/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0050",
      "title": "IBM 4765 Cryptographic Coprocessor Security Module: Security Policy",
      "authors": "IBM Corporation",
      "year": 2012,
      "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1505.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/ibm-4765-security-policy/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3262",
      "title": "PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety",
      "authors": "PHYSEC GmbH",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/",
      "path": "/sources/physec-seal/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1316",
      "title": "Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey",
      "authors": "H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum",
      "year": 2015,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541",
      "path": "/sources/smartt-tamper-indicating-enclosures-survey/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0018",
      "title": "A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification",
      "authors": "N. Cankaya",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/cankaya-system-overview-low-trust-compute-verification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1317",
      "title": "Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia",
      "year": 1996,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-physical-security-tamper-indicating-devices/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1318",
      "title": "Tamper Detection for Safeguards and Treaty Monitoring: Fantasies, Realities, and Potentials",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston",
      "year": 2001,
      "url": "https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81john.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-tamper-detection-safeguards-treaty-monitoring/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3261",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection",
      "authors": "M. S. Tabar et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279",
      "path": "/sources/tabar-anti-tamper-radio-ris/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0007",
      "title": "Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification",
      "authors": "S. Ansari",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712",
      "path": "/sources/ansari-hardware-level-governance-ai-compute/"
    }
  ]
}